OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 11:59 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Now cut the crap and stop deluding yourself by trying to differentiate between France in Viet Nam and the US in Viet Nam.

Where did I make that distinction? I said the alleged motives were different, but that just say the propaganda was different. It says nothing about what behavior both armies adopted while in the battlefield or with civilians.




On the latter issue, however, Setanta rightly pointed out that the French did not carpet bomb Vietnam.
You guys did that, with your amazing oh-so-American restraint.
Do u think we shud have NUCLEAR carpet-bombed ????????
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:11 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I don't think so. But you are entitled to your opinion... Smile


I don't think you are having fun either. Too much heat for you. I get under your skin too easily.

I can cure that, though.

Stick with me, Olivier. Wink
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:12 pm
@panzade,
panzade wrote:

Quote:
France showed greater restraint in warfare than the US.

Only because the colonial empire was bankrupt. Otherwise the restraint would have been the same
FRANK
Quote:
Now we are just having a bit of fun...as happens in almost all threads here in A2K. You are having fun, aren't you? Wink

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/148763_520944107924145_1214647911_n.jpg


GREAT!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:15 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Setanta wrote:

What is most pathetic about this disgusting display of chauvinism, this entire thread, is the attempt to whitewash or ignore the shameful chapters.
Frank Apisa wrote:


C’mon, Jabba…you are letting your anger get in the way of reason again.

First of all…using any kind of weapons sucks. Agent Orange, Napalm, drones…all suck. War itself, as Sherman mentioned, is hell.

But using weapons that are not the biggest and baddest in your arsenal…IS SHOWING RESTRAINT.

I can’t imagine some of the earlier world powers saying…”well, we’ve got such and such a weapon…and we can annihilate them with that…but we will use some restraint and only use the weapons which will hurt them but not annihilate them.”

The US has much greater power to kill and maim and dominate than Agent Orange, Napalm, or drones…but instead is showing restraint.

So you are correct, Jabba, that using the weapons we have used IS disgusting.
OK, lemme get this straight, Frank:
in order to avoid being DISGUSTING,
we shud have resisted the Japs, the nazis, and the commies with NO weapons????

Shud we have hit them with pillows ["not too hard, ez, there!"]


In your vu, we shud have answered their aggression
by DOING NOTHING, Mahatma Apisa?????


Read what I wrote again, David. War is hell. I wish no humans would ever have to use any weapons against anyone else.

But there are the realities (or illusions of realities0 of life on the planet to deal with.

The US could always go with the most ferocious weapons in its arsenal...or it could show some restraint.

Mostly, we show restraint. And in my opinion, we show more restrain than most other great powers of the past have shown.

That was all I was saying.

izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:19 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You're the one who favours slavery, slavery by a ruling oligarchy of the mega rich taking an ever more increasing share of the World's resources and leaving the other 99% to argue over the crumbs.

I value genuine freedom.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:22 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

izzythepush wrote:
As a child I remember giving my pocket money
to a trade unionist collecting for the Vietnamese.
I hope it was for the SOUTH Vietnamese.


That's the triumph of hope over experience.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:25 pm
@panzade,
You see, this is the sort of thing which makes a joke out of this pathetic thread--this comic book version of history. France did not "pillage" the far East. Indo-China was their only colonial effort in the region, and they did not engage in wholesale slaughter or plundering, they simply took over and told the people what they wanted them to grow (chiefly rubber) for their new masters.

Of all the so-called great powers, France showed more restraint than any other nations, except for the Germans, who came late to the overseas colony game. Pre-revolutionary, royalist France laid a very light hand on the native populations. When Cartier came to the valley of the St. Laurant in the 1530s, he described the culture and recorded the language of the people living there. Based on that information, 19th century linguists and ethnologists came to the conclusion that the people living there were Huron-Iroquois (chiefly based on the language). In the next three generations, that part of what we call Canada was overrun by Algonquian speakers, and a reasonable inference which can be taken is that they ran out the Iroquois simply by virtue of greater numbers. More on that in a moment.

In 1562, a colony was established on Parris Island (as it is now known) near Hilton Head in what is now South Carolina. Ribault, who had founded the colony, sailed back to France, but was delayed because of strife between the Protestant and Catholics in France. The colonists, despairing of a rescue, built a small sloop and sailed back to France. In 1564, Ribault tried again, and established a colony at Cape Canaveral in what is now Florida. Fort Caroline, as it was called, enjoyed good relations with the local people, the hallmark of royal policy for the colonies. However, the Spanish didn't like the French colonizing what they considered their land, and were even more incensed that the colonists were Protestants. A Spanish officer named Núñez set out to destroy the colonists. In appalling incident which i won't describe in detail here, Núñez took Fort Caroline and destroyed most (but not all) of the colonists. Many of them he convinced to surrender, the bound their hands and executed them. We know this not only because of the reports of the survivors, but because Núñez produced a detailed account--he was proud of what he had done, because those French were "heretics."

Later, French Protestants settled what is now known as Key West--but the Spanish drove them out of there, too. Finally, French Protestants estalished themselves on the west end of the island of Hispaniola, in what is now called Haiti. Once again, because they were Protestants, the Spanish from Santo Domingo (on the other end of the island) hunted them down. Conceited young bucks, calling themselves the lanceros, would ride them down in the forest. The French got on well with the natives there, too. It was from them that they learned how to smoke meat on green wood frames, which meat they would sell to ships calling at Tortuga to buy supplies. The French rendered the Indian name for the green wood frames boucan, which is the origin of the word buccaneer. So many of the French survivors of the attacks of the lanceros took to piracy if they survived that buccaneer came to be cognate for pirate. The island or Tortuga, of the northwest coast of the main island, became a center for piracy, and the royal governor looked the other way, because the proceeds were too lucrative to ignore.

In 1608, Samuel de Champlain returned to the river Cartier had explored in the 1530s, and there established the colony of New France. He quickly established good relations with the dominant Algoquian-speaking tribe, the Ottawa. Apparently, ever since being driven out of the St. Laurant valley, the Iroquois expressed their displeasure by raiding into the river valley each year. In 1608, as soon as the Ottawa identified the Iroquois expedition, they went to Champlain for help. With a few of his men, he joined their war party, and their fire arms completely dismayed the Iroquois--the Ottawa then fell on their party and wreaked a great slaughter on them. The Iroquois never forgave the French. For 150 years they tried to destroy the French. They twice invaded New France, on one occasion staying there for almost two years before their logistics failed them. The early French settlers were nothing is not hardy, though, and they hung on.

With their military expeditions a failure, the Iroquois decided to practice economic warfare--they would attack the French fur trade. To accomplish that end, they began to exterminate or attempt to exterminate, the tribes west of New France. According to the Jesuits, they killed off about 70% of the Hurons, who were their linguistic and cultural brothers. They completely exterminated one sept know as the Cat People. We don't know if they were Hurons or Algonquians, because they were wiped out before the Jesuits had sent a mission there. They next turned on the Meswaki--called the Outagamie by the French, and the Fox Indians by the later English speakers. The Meswaki fought them to a standstill, with great loss on both sides. The Iroquois then began burning down the forests around their villages, and the Meswaki eventually evacuated Michigan and moved to what is now Wisconsin. So much for that old hippy happy horseshit about Indians living in harmony with their red brothers and the environment.

In 1676, Henri de Tonti was travelling up the river we call the Illinois. He stopped at what is now known as Starved Rock, where the Illiniwek (and hence, Illinois in French) were wintering. After a few days, he and his few companions crossed the river. Old hands in the forests by then, they didn't just blunder along. They discovered a large Iroquois war party, which Tonti estimated at 200o, and quietly withdrew. The hurried back to Starved Rock to warn the Illiniwek, and convinced them (much agains their better judgment) to join them in a surprise attack on the Iroquois, while the old men, the women and children dug up all of the winter supplies and hurried south along the river. The attack on the Iroquois, with Tonti's men and their firearms, was sufficient to give the Illiniwek the chance to escape. The Iroquois rallied and went to Starved Rock, where they dug up the graves of the Illiniwek in frustrated rage. They then recrossed the river, and began marching south. I suspect they didn't know the geography of the area and thought they could get ahead of the Illiniwek and recross at any bend of the river which turned east. Fortunately for the Illiniwek, the Illinois River only runs south or west. Reaching the Mississippi, near present day St. Louis, the Illiniwek crossed the great river--all except for the Tamaroa sept. The Iroquois crossed in the night, and fell on the Tamaroa, killing almost everyone except for a handful of young men who made it across the Mississippi. The Iroquois were not good on the water, and the Mississippi proved an adequate barrier to protect the Illiniwek. The few Tamaroa survivors were taken into other septs--sot the Tamaroa had been effectively exterminated.

For all of that narrative, see the seven volume history of the French in North America by the great American historian, Francis Parkman.

Sadly, the French in the Caribbean succumbed to the disease of slavery. The native populations had already been eliminated by white man's diseases and the predation of the Caribs. In India, they continued their policy of getting along with the native populations, but they backed the wrong horse. They allied themselves to the Muslim ruling classes, who lorded it over huge populations of Hindus. Unlike the English, though, the French went on no wars of conquest there.

The revolution and Napoleon almost destroyed the French overseas empires. But nothing loath, the restored monarcy and later the Second Empire and the subsequent republics enthusiastically went out to conquer new colonies. The story of the conquest of Algeria is an ugly one. The new colonies set up in west Africa, though, were relatively benign--the local rules saw the advantages of allying themselves to a powerful European nation, and the French record was not bad The French remain good friends, and when necessary, reliable military allies of their former colonies in Africa.

After the fall of the Second Empire, the French developed this rather bizarre attitude. While conquering new colonies, the people France embraced the idea of la mission civilisatrice. That meant that little brown babies and little yellow babies were educated exactly as were the little white babies in France. Ho Chi Mihn was educated in Paris, where he joined the communist party. A great many of the leaders of former French colonies were educated in France, because the people of France embraced (if perhaps not enthusiastically) the people of their empire.

This thread of Frank's is simple-minded, chauvinistic horseshit. Don't help him to perpetrate this ****, Pan.
Frank Apisa
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:27 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You see, this is the sort of thing which makes a joke out of this pathetic thread--this comic book version of history. France did not "pillage" the far East. Indo-China was their only colonial effort in the region, and they did not engage in wholesale slaughter or plundering, they simply took over and told the people what they wanted them to grow (chiefly rubber) for their new masters.

Of all the so-called great powers, France showed more restraint than any other nations, except for the Germans, who came late to the overseas colony game. Pre-revolutionary, royalist France laid a very light hand on the native populations. When Cartier came to the valley of the St. Laurant in the 1530s, he described the culture and recorded the language of the people living there. Based on that information, 19th century linguists and ethnologists came to the conclusion that the people living there were Huron-Iroquois (chiefly based on the language). In the next three generations, that part of what we call Canada was overrun by Algonquian speakers, and reasonable inference which can be taken is that they ran out the Iroquois simply by virtue of greater numbers. More on that in a moment.

In 1562, a colony was established on Parris Island (as it is now known) near Hilton Head in what is now South Carolina. Ribault, who had founded the colony, sailed back to France, but was delayed because of strife between the Protestant and Catholics in France. The colonists, despairing of a rescue, built a small sloop and sailed back to France. In 1564, Ribault tried again, and established a colony at Cape Canaveral in what is now Florida. Fort Caroline, as it was called, enjoyed good relations with the local people, the hallmark of royal policy for the colonies. However, the Spanish didn't like the French colonizing what they considered their land, and were even more incensed that the colonists were Protestants. A Spanish officer named Núñez set out to destroy the colonists. In appalling incident which i won't describe in detail here, Núñez took Fort Caroline and destroyed most (but not all) of the colonists. Many of them he convinced to surrender, the bound their hands and executed them. We know this not only because of the reports of the survivors, but because Núñez produced a detailed account--he was proud of what he had done.

Later, French Protestants settled what is now known as Key West--but the Spanish drove them out of there, too. Finally, French Protestants estalished themselves on the west end of the island of Hispaniola, in what is now called Haiti. Once again, because they were Protestants, the Spanish from Santo Domingo (on the other end of the island) hunted them down. Conceited young bucks, calling themselves the lanceros, would ride them down in the forest. The French got on well with the natives there, too. It was from them that they learned how to smoke meat on green wood frames, which meat they would sell to ships calling at Tortuga to buy supplies. The French rendered the Indian name for the green wood frames boucan, which is the origin of the word buccaneer. So many of the French survivors of the attacks of the lanceros took to piracy if they survived that buccaneer came to be cognate for pirate. The island or Tortuga, of the northwest coast of the main island, became a center for piracy, and the royal governor looked the other way, because the proceeds were too lucrative to ignore.

In 1608, Samuel de Champlain returned to the river Cartier had explored in the 1530s, and there established the colony of New France. He quickly established good relations with the dominant Algoquian-speaking tribe, the Ottawa. Apparently, ever since being driven out of the St. Laurant valley, the Iroquois expressed their displeasure by raiding into the river valley each year. In 1608, as soon as the Ottawa identified the Iroquois expedition, they went to Champlain for help. With a few of his men, he joined their war party, and their fire arms completely dismayed the Iroquois--the Ottawa then fell on their party and wreaked a great slaughter on them. The Iroquois never forgave the French. For 150 years they tried to destroy the French. They twice invaded New France, on one occasion staying there for almost two years before their logistics failed them. The early French settlers were nothing is not hardy, though, and they hung on.

With their military expeditions a failure, the Iroquois decided to practice economic warfare--they would attack the French fur trade. To accomplish that end, they began to exterminate or attempt to exterminate, the tribes west of New France. According to the Jesuits, they killed off about 70% of the Hurons, who were their linguistic and cultural brothers. They completely exterminated one sept know as the Cat People. We don't know if they were Hurons or Algonquians, because they were wiped out before the Jesuits had sent a mission there. They next turned on the Meswaki--called the Outagamie by the French, and the Fox Indians by the later English speakers. The Meswaki fought them to a standstill, with great loos on both sides. The Iroquois then began burning down the forests around their villages, and the Meswaki eventually evacuated Michigan and moved to what is now Wisconsin. So much for that old hippy happy horseshit about Indians living in harmony with their red brothers and the environment.

In 1676, Henri de Tonti was travelling up the river we call the Illinois. He stopped at what is now known as Starved Rock, where the Illiniwek (and hence, Illinois in French) were wintering. After a few days, he and his few companions crossed the river. Old hands in the forests by then, they didn't just blunder along. They discovered a large Iroquois war party, which Tonti estimated at 200o, and quietly withdrew. The hurried back to Starved Rock to warn the Illiniwek, and convinced them (much agains their better judgment) to join them in a surprise attack on the Iroquois, while the old men, the women and children dug up all of the winter supplies and hurried south along the river. The attack on the Iroquois, with Tonti's men and their firearms, was sufficient to give the Illiniwek the chance to escape. The Iroquois rallied and went to Starved Rock, where they dug up the graves of the Illiniwek in frustrated rage. They then recrossed the river, and began marching south. I suspect they didn't know the geography of the area and thought they could get ahead of the Illiniwek and recross at any bend of the river which turned east. Fortunately for the Illiniwek, the Illinois River only runs south or west. Reaching the Mississippi, near present day St. Louis, the Illiniwek crossed the great river--all except for the Tamaroa sept. The Iroquois crossed in the night, and fell on the Tamaroa, killing almost everyone except for a handful of young men who made it across the Mississippi. The Iroquois were not good on the water, and the Mississippi proved an adequate barrier to protect the Illiniwek. The few Tamaroa survivors were taken into other septs--sot the Tamaroa had been effectively exterminated.

For all of that narrative, see the seven volume history of the French in North America by the great American historian, Francis Parkman.

Sadly, the French in the Caribbean succumbed to the disease of slavery. The native populations had already been eliminated by white man's diseases and the predation of the Caribs. In India, they continued their policy of getting along with the native populations, but they backed the wrong horse. They allied themselves to the Muslim ruling classes, who lorded it over huge populations of Hindus. Unlike the English, though, the French went on no wars of conquest there.

The revolution and Napoleon almost destroyed the French overseas empires. But nothing loath, the restored monarcy and later the Second Empire and the subsequent republics enthusiastically went out to conquer new colonies. The story of the conquest of Algeria is an ugly one. The new colonies set up in west Africa, though, were relatively benign--the local rules saw the advantages of allying themselves to a powerful European nation, and the French record was not bad The French remain good friends, and when necessary, reliable military allies of their former colonies in Africa.

After the fall of the Second Empire, the French developed this rather bizarre attitude. While conquering new colonies, the people France embraced the idea of la mission civilisatrice. That meant that little brown babies and little yellow babies were educated exactly as were the little white babies in France. Ho Chi Mihn was educated in Paris, where he joined the communist party. A great many of the leaders of former French colonies were educated in France, because the people of France embraced (if perhaps not enthusiastically) the people of their empire.

This thread of Frank's is simple-minded, chauvinistic horseshit. Don't help him to perpetrate this ****, Pan.


Jabba, that was very good. Thank you for that delightful contribution to his thread.

Glad to have someone of your great intelligence contributing.

Now go have a snack. You are so testy when you are off your feed! Wink
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:33 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Eat **** an die, you scum-sicking low-life.
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:36 pm
@Setanta,
Thanks for the history lesson boss. It's been a while since you've had the energy to do so it seems.
In any case it helps keep things in perspective
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:39 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Eat **** an die, you scum-sicking low-life.


Shouldn't that have been "scum-sucking" low life, Jabba?

Pressure getting to ya?

Anyway...I thought we came to an understanding.

I am Mr. Scum-sucking Low Life to you! Wink
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:40 pm
@panzade,
Keeping things in perspective is what i was hoping for. In terms of their relations with the colonial native populations, the Germans had the best track record. Ironic, innit?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Pressure . . . ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . . what a clown.
Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:42 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Pressure . . . ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . . what a clown.


Jabba...you mean it is not the pressure???

Well...maybe it is the heat! Wink
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Setanta wrote:

What is most pathetic about this disgusting display of chauvinism, this entire thread, is the attempt to whitewash or ignore the shameful chapters.
Frank Apisa wrote:


C’mon, Jabba…you are letting your anger get in the way of reason again.

First of all…using any kind of weapons sucks. Agent Orange, Napalm, drones…all suck. War itself, as Sherman mentioned, is hell.

But using weapons that are not the biggest and baddest in your arsenal…IS SHOWING RESTRAINT.

I can’t imagine some of the earlier world powers saying…”well, we’ve got such and such a weapon…and we can annihilate them with that…but we will use some restraint and only use the weapons which will hurt them but not annihilate them.”

The US has much greater power to kill and maim and dominate than Agent Orange, Napalm, or drones…but instead is showing restraint.

So you are correct, Jabba, that using the weapons we have used IS disgusting.
OK, lemme get this straight, Frank:
in order to avoid being DISGUSTING,
we shud have resisted the Japs, the nazis, and the commies with NO weapons????

Shud we have hit them with pillows ["not too hard, ez, there!"]


In your vu, we shud have answered their aggression
by DOING NOTHING, Mahatma Apisa?????


Read what I wrote again, David. War is hell. I wish no humans would ever have to use any weapons against anyone else.

But there are the realities (or illusions of realities0 of life on the planet to deal with.

The US could always go with the most ferocious weapons in its arsenal...or it could show some restraint.

Mostly, we show restraint. And in my opinion, we show more restrain than most other great powers of the past have shown.

That was all I was saying.
No, Frank. The record shows
that is NOT "all" u were saying.
I read what u said and in PARTICULAR I read your having said

Frank Apisa wrote:
So you are correct, Jabba,
that using the weapons we have used IS disgusting.
Correct me if I am rong,
but that suggests EITHER that we shud resist them with softer,
sweeter, nicer weapons than we did (i.e., maybe offering them wholesome milk & cookies)
or
resist their automatic weapons, tanks n Air Forces empty-handed

or

not resist the Japs, the nazis or the commies AT ALL, just surrender,
in order to AVOID being "disgusting" as u chose to put it.

It has been super-OBVIOUS that America has exerted extreme restraint in use of its military assets.

I don 't ofen praise Roosevelt, but I gotta admit that
when he attacked the nazis he did not exert restraint; he did it right
(except for some blundering incompetence).
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 12:54 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
In terms of their relations with the colonial native populations, the Germans had the best track record. Ironic, innit?
That is ... well, not really true. They were quite bad, as bad as the others.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 01:03 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Correct me if I am rong,
but that suggests EITHER that we shud resist them with softer,
sweeter, nicer weapons than we did (i.e., maybe offering them wholesome milk & cookies)


That's so typical of you to ram your beliefs down another country's throat. If I have a biscuit, I like a cup of tea with it. The last thing I'd think of drinking was a glass of milk. Likewise the Russians would much rather have vodka and caviar.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 01:08 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Setanta wrote:

What is most pathetic about this disgusting display of chauvinism, this entire thread, is the attempt to whitewash or ignore the shameful chapters.
Frank Apisa wrote:


C’mon, Jabba…you are letting your anger get in the way of reason again.

First of all…using any kind of weapons sucks. Agent Orange, Napalm, drones…all suck. War itself, as Sherman mentioned, is hell.

But using weapons that are not the biggest and baddest in your arsenal…IS SHOWING RESTRAINT.

I can’t imagine some of the earlier world powers saying…”well, we’ve got such and such a weapon…and we can annihilate them with that…but we will use some restraint and only use the weapons which will hurt them but not annihilate them.”

The US has much greater power to kill and maim and dominate than Agent Orange, Napalm, or drones…but instead is showing restraint.

So you are correct, Jabba, that using the weapons we have used IS disgusting.
OK, lemme get this straight, Frank:
in order to avoid being DISGUSTING,
we shud have resisted the Japs, the nazis, and the commies with NO weapons????

Shud we have hit them with pillows ["not too hard, ez, there!"]


In your vu, we shud have answered their aggression
by DOING NOTHING, Mahatma Apisa?????


Read what I wrote again, David. War is hell. I wish no humans would ever have to use any weapons against anyone else.

But there are the realities (or illusions of realities0 of life on the planet to deal with.

The US could always go with the most ferocious weapons in its arsenal...or it could show some restraint.

Mostly, we show restraint. And in my opinion, we show more restrain than most other great powers of the past have shown.

That was all I was saying.
No, Frank. The record shows
that is NOT "all" u were saying.
I read what u said and in PARTICULAR I read your having said

Frank Apisa wrote:
So you are correct, Jabba,
that using the weapons we have used IS disgusting.
Correct me if I am rong,
but that suggests EITHER that we shud resist them with softer,
sweeter, nicer weapons than we did (i.e., maybe offering them wholesome milk & cookies)
or
resist their automatic weapons, tanks n Air Forces empty-handed

or

not resist the Japs, the nazis or the commies AT ALL, just surrender,
in order to AVOID being "disgusting" as u chose to put it.

It has been super-OBVIOUS that America has exerted extreme restraint in use of its military assets.

I don 't ofen praise Roosevelt, but I gotta admit that
when he attacked the nazis he did not exert restraint; he did it right
(except for some blundering incompetence).


I also said that using ANY is disgusting...so yes, using those weapons are, in my opinion, disgusting. But taking into consideration all sorts of other things...

...I still think it is disgusting to use weapons.

Sorry, David. I thought you would be one of the people here defending my right to have that opinion...and my right to express it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 01:09 pm
I guess I was wrong.

Won't be the last time!
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 Jan, 2014 01:24 pm
@Frank Apisa,
So you think killing 90% of the American natives was a show of restraint?

What about the behavior of King Darius allowing the Jews to settle back in Canaan? Was that more or less restrained than, say, Reagan's ridiculous invasion of Grenada?

Or would you rather talk about me?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » IS AMERICA A BULLY?
  3. » Page 23
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 02:13:49